Only Dried Marijuana Counts, Says Appeals Court

[Highlander]

wow! 

 

so what happened, was the prosecutor going to let it go, but then since a publication request came they are going to fight it to the supreme court?

 

or were they going to appeal it anyway?

 

a re-hearing? does the coa do those much? i am thinking not. there is no full panel coa iirc ?

 

 

 

i read this but didnt notice it until now.

 

stems are not usable marihuana. most of your buds have stems in them. the stems must be removed before weighing

 

Hmmmm:

 

"Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.

 

What is the difference between a stem and a stalk?  Are they the same thing? 

 

Using common terms as I learned them, it appears to me like a stalk is the main supporting structure of a plant, and the stem is the part that supports leaves and flowers.  Or, "stalk" is to "tree trunk" as "stem" is to "tree branch"

 

I wouldn't want to be in a position to have to argue that the "stems" inside my buds are actually "stalks," but for the sake of better understanding......

 

Food for thought. (pun intended).  Here's a website that discusses stem vs. stalk when it comes to rhubarb.

 

http://www.botanicalaccuracy.com/2013/05/the-difference-between-stems-stalks-and.html

 

"The problem is that many times people inaccurately call it rhubarb stems.  A stem is a part of the plant that is a central shoot that holds the leaves, branches, flowers, and so on.  The true rhubarb stem is a hollow, nearly bamboo-like cylinder, which leads up to a terminal shoot that eventually develops flower buds."

 

From the freedictionary.com:

 

a. A stem or main axis of a herbaceous plant.

b. A stem or similar structure that supports a plant part such as a flower, flower cluster, or leaf.

 

 

So...Are all stems stalks?

 

Anyone have any thoughts?

[t-pain]

the point is that the stem is not a flower.

dont bother arguing stem = stalk.

[t-pain]

what point i'm trying to say is that i dont grind down my buds into stalk-less piles. 

and i'm sure the police have weighed marijuana with stems / stalks in it, thus not meeting the 'usable marihuana' definition of being dried flowers or leaves...

[YesMichigan]

what point i'm trying to say is that i dont grind down my buds into stalk-less piles. 

and i'm sure the police have weighed marijuana with stems / stalks in it, thus not meeting the 'usable marihuana' definition of being dried flowers or leaves...

 

You want the stem removed from the bud when weighed because the stem inside the bud is not usable marihuana. I have said similar elsewhere and I agree with you. 1/10's of grams perhaps at the end of the day but it does reflect a problem with the accuracy of the evidence being used against you.

 

Of course you set me straight before in that an incidental amount of stems and seeds are allowed under the act so whatever the weight of the stem is inside the bud can't be used against you.

 

Pedantic as hell but isn't that what this is all about in the first place?

[t-pain]

a smart lawyer argued in a case that the prosecutor cannot modify the evidence.

 

so there is no way the police can remove the stems from the marijuana and re-weigh it to make it usable.

 

by definition the bud you have with stems attached is not usable.

[YesMichigan]

a smart lawyer argued in a case that the prosecutor cannot modify the evidence.

 

so there is no way the police can remove the stems from the marijuana and re-weigh it to make it usable.

 

by definition the bud you have with stems attached is not usable.

 

Well, too much unusable marihuana is a violation also.

 

Words are so much fun. Its prison and court that sucks.

 

Thank you for the chuckle.

[Highlander]

the point is that the stem is not a flower.

dont bother arguing stem = stalk.

Good point. If it isn't a leaf or flower it isn't "usable MJ." So whether a stem is a stalk or not doesn't matter. But this raises an interesting question. Not only does the law say "usable" is the leaf and flower, it goes on to say that stalks, unusable roots and incidental seeds don't count. So statutory interpretation rules would probably tell us that because the law doesn't simply say " leaves and flowers" are usable but that it goes on to specifically address the other parts of a plant, it addresses the entire plant. (If a stem isn't a stalk, then "stem" would be the only part of the plant not specifically addressed, and that would be absurd.)

 

It it interesting to look at how the rest of the plant is addressed.

 

Stalks (no qualification)

Seeds (qualified as "incidental")

Roots (qualified as "unusable")

 

So it would seem that no stalks count, some seeds and roots could?

 

But what are "incidental" seeds? And that the law specifies " incidental" seeds means that there is another kind of seed. What is that? And how does that non-incidental seed fall under the MMMA?

 

If you are using roots (root salve) are they no longer "unusable?" If that is the case, how do they fall under the MMMA?

 

Interesting items to think about and discuss.

[YesMichigan]

Only if Randall remains unpublished. Request for publication was filed this week. Besides, what would be "too much?"

 

The contention being that a stem inside a flower would render the entire flower "unusable". This would mean a patient with 2.5 ounces of flower with stems inside and thus rendered unusable COULD be deemed to be in possession of an inordinate amount of "marijuana" given they had no "usable marihuana". A 0:infinite ratio of "unusable" to "usable" could be argued as "too much". I don't derive pleasure in thinking like a Prosecutor, for the record.

 

I don't think Randall would change this logic as T-pain is slicing some hairs that are already rather short and curly.

 

Randall represents an acceptance of reality in the manufacture of "usable marihuana". It would offer protection for every caregiver working hard to be legal under the Act.

 

T-Pain's insinuation that an ounce of marijuana is "unusable" because there is a stem in the center of a bud is fun wordplay but I don't think it will get a cardholder out of the handcuffs or the defendant's chair.

[YesMichigan]

Logic does not matter, remember? Only definitions.

 

Interpretations of definitions, I would contend.

 

Root Salve would definitely (IN MY OPINION) read as being outside the scope of "usable marihuana" as it is not created using the "dried leaf or flower". I'm not a lawyer, judge or prosecutor but that is how I read it.

[trichcycler]

wouldn't that be something, a prosecution for root salve. wouldn't surprise me, well with all the low crime stats(?), cops have nothing better to do than to pick on poor sick people.

[YesMichigan]

wouldn't that be something, a prosecution for root salve. wouldn't surprise me, well with all the low crime stats(?), cops have nothing better to do than to pick on poor sick people.

 

Now you're back dealing in reality. What are the chances of someone with root salve encountering LEO? What is the chance LEO identifies and arrests for the root salve ignoring the card at the time?

 

Knowing Carruthers, if it got to the point where the Court of Appeals was told the contents of the evidence was a mixture derived from the roots of a marihuana plant, do you think they would dismiss the charges because it is "usable marihuana"? My honest answer based on the logic used in the Carruthers opinion would be an adamant "No".

 

The system does not care who it grinds up. We look at the broken eggs while they are eating the omelet.

[GregS]

Correct on the no full panel. I'd think they will not reconsider the ruling, but perhaps the prosecutor's motion was filed in response to the request for publication.

 

I know the Hartwick prosecutor called me the day after I filed our amicus brief and threatened to file a motion to waive our brief due to the lateness and some irregularities with my proof of service, but change his mind after we discussed it.

Nice work zap.

[GregS]

Ya know. It is refreshing that we are participating in the argument that the full text, intent, and letter of the law be paramount, and that we are winning. The trial courts that have ruled against us have been less than bright, in fact stupid. It does my heart and soul and mind good that we have only to hold our ground to be recognized as righteous to the point that we will not be denied.

[t-pain]

hah they danced around carruthers again. i was wondering how those didnt conflict....

[blackhorse]

So the material that was drying could not be used against the defendant?

[trichcycler]

is my racked cannabis dried and RTU when I say so ?

[t-pain]

"The hearing panel directs that the publication request is denied."

 

motion to reconsider denied and motion to publish denied.

[trichcycler]

There is also some instruction in there about perpetual harvesting, which I find interesting.

Would you kindly direct me to the perpetual harvesting instructions please?

[t-pain]

Would you kindly direct me to the perpetual harvesting instructions please?

not really instructions, but one half sentence on the drying states of marijuana as a caregiver.

 

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/coa/public/orders/2015/318740(43)_order.pdf

 

 

 

 

Further, subsection (h) of Section 4 provides that "[a]ny marijuana ... that is

possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana, as allowed under this act

shall not be seized or forfeited." MCL 333.26424(h).

 

Therefore, the drying plant material was in connection with the medical use or cultivation

of marijuana and should not preclude a Section 4 defense. To hold otherwise would result in no

caregiver from practically ever being able to claim a Section 4 defense because, given the long times

needed to dry plant materials, there likely always would be materials from various plants in drying

states. A defense that would allow a caregiver to possess plants but not cultivate them would serve no

purpose. See Moore v Fennville Pub Schs Bd of Ed, 223 Mich App 196, 201; 566 NW2d 31 (1997) ("It

is the duty of the courts to interpret statutes so as to render no provision meaningless. ").

pretty damned good reasoning in that one. any marihuana... ANY

Edited March 14, 2015 by t-pain

[trichcycler]

TY

[bobandtorey]

Am glad to here that maybe even the sick in Oakland County will be able to grow once again 

 

Keep planting them Rainbows 

[medmanmike]

darn, we will still use it, though.

Zap, could you explain this a little more for those of us who have no clue as to why some get published and others don't?

 

If this was done in a public court hearing or meeting, why the secrecy? What advantage does it have for those who don't want it published? Thanks.

[trichcycler]

Am glad to here that maybe even the sick in Oakland County will be able to grow once again

when you post statements like that you know you are misleading patients right?

We all know that patients and caregivers all over that county are enjoying growing their own medicine.

 

I understand patients breaking laws in any MI county may be subject to arrests and raids, even in Oakland County.

[t-pain]

you may want to give bob a free pass. he has seen the worst oakland county has to offer.

[ozzrokk]

I understand patients breaking laws in any MI county may be subject to arrests and raids, even in Oakland County.

 

 

And you understand that this statement is saying that anyone arrested or raided must have been breaking the law right?

 

Edited to add that while I do basically believe the part you put about Bob's statement but then you turn around and put one yourself.

Edited March 15, 2015 by ozzrokk